FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, September 3, 2009
Members: C. Bell, R. Berls, G. Boudreaux, L. Dohse, G. Ettari, V. Frank, B. Haas, G. Heard, J. Konz,
B. Larson, A. Lanou, K. Moorhead, L. Nelms, E. Pearson, D. Pierce, K. Reynolds, L. Russell,
M. Sidelnick; J. Fernandes, A. Ponder
Visitors: G. Ashburn, S. Haas, E. Katz, G. Kormanik, K. Krumpe, L. Langrall P. McClellan, C. Mercer,
S. Patch, R. Pente, A. Reagan, A. Shope, J. Stevens
I. Call to Order, Introductions and Announcements
Dr. Dohse called the meeting to order at 3:19 pm and welcomed Senators and guests.
II. Approval of minutes
The following minutes were approved as distributed:
· April 9, 2009
· April 30, 2009 (3:15pm)
· April 30, 2009 Organizational Meeting (4:30pm)
· May 7, 2009 Special meeting.
III. Comments from Chancellor Ponder
The Chancellor complimented the faculty on their work last year and on remaining flexible during these financially difficult times. She also lauded the Provost for her leadership and productivity, and used the opportunity to outline administration changes that she will institute this coming year.
· Some of the administrative positions that were cut mean that responsibilities have to be reassigned more broadly among faculty and senior staff.
o The Chancellor plans on engaging our Board to do more.
o John Pierce (our new CFO) will take some responsibility for state relations.
o Jim Fox will be helping with federal relations.
Cone, our Athletic Director, will be looking after some collaborative
university enterprises and will be an overlap for us with
· The Chancellor would like the Provost to deepen her influence and her leadership and to count on faculty, deans, department chairs, Faculty Senate, and others to deepen responsibility and authority in the Academic Affairs division. Specific actions include:
o The Library, Instructional Technology, and Institutional Research areas will be under Academic Affairs.
o The Provost, will work with the Chancellor as a clear number two in the university. Jane Fernandes will be in charge whenever the Chancellor is not on campus and not available for more than a day.
· The Chancellor would like to have the Senate involved with selecting some retired faculty to receive an honor using an anonymous gift received last spring. The gift has been used as follows:
o $500,000 was restricted for a short list of academic high priorities.
o $250,000 has been dedicated to equipment in the Zeis Science and Multimedia building.
o $250,000 has been submitted to the Spangler match to create another endowed chair. Roy Carroll will be honored with having his name on that endowed chair. That match has been achieved. The legislature did not include matches for the endowed professorships in this year’s budget.
o In close consultation with Jane Fernandes, Patrice Mitchell, and Pat McClellan, we determined how to spend the remaining $1,000,000. The guidelines said those were for scholarships and for women and minorities to the extent permissible by law. That is a preference rather than a universal application for women and minorities. They gave us full flexibility about whether we spend it now or whether we put it in an endowment.
§ Reserved $400,000 to be spent in the near term.
§ $600,000 has been placed in the endowment, divided into six identical endowment funds.
§ To make the scholarships more meaningful for students each will be named for someone. Three will be named for retired faculty. The Chancellor would like to ask the Alumni Council to bring the Faculty Senate five or six names that they would nominate for its consideration. Then she would like for the Faculty Senate to devise a process to chose the three to whom an invitation will be extended to have their names on these endowed funds this year.
§ On September 10th at 12:30pm the University will recognize the distinguished staff member of the year and we will preview Zeis. We will bring to campus the three individuals who are retired staff to confer this honor on them and thank them. Those people are:
· First Dean of Women at UNC
· Long serving tutor of Chancellors, Carolyn Frady;
· Long serving Administrative Assistant in Academic Affairs, Jackie Peterson.
· The Chancellor expressed concern over an issue that is part of the university system. The Raleigh News and Observer has identified for President Bowles what he wants to be his legacy, and that is a lean, business-like university. Further, the news media is clear that he does not have it yet. Chancellors received some very sharp instructions with threats of not authorizing and certifying our budget for the year until we comply. UNC Asheville is not over-staffed, yet we may have to cut further from the administration and middle management. Over the next several weeks her office will work closely with all of our processes including the University Planning Council.
IV. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Lothar Dohse reported for the Executive Committee.
Standing Rules and Rules of Order (SRRO)
Dr. Dohse noted the editorial changes made to this year’s Standing Rules and Rules of Order (SRRO.) He explained the “Comer Rule” which requires a first and seconding reading of documents. The Senate does not vote on a document the day that it is brought to the Senate; the vote occurs at the following meeting. The Senate will abide by the Comer Rule, but if Senators have a question of clarification or fact, ask the person or group that brought the document so that during discussion the person presenting the document is better prepared. This is a request to make things run smoother.
Dr. Bell said if Senators see something that is unclear, where a change is needed, talk to the person in charge and perhaps arrange some friendly amendments ahead of time. If we do that, also give the copy to Sandra Gravely to make the process easier. The Standing Rules and Rules of Order passed without dissent and became SD0409F.
Major challenges of 2009/2010 academic year
Dr. Dohse said we are in seemingly unstable times where everything from our financial situation to the tools that we use change on a weekly basis. These are stressful times and emotions might be a little rawer this year than in previous years. Keep that in mind during discussions.
He highlighted major challenges for this academic year. Our SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools) reaccreditation is looming on the horizon and it will require new responsibilities and duties. In this regard, two major assessments will be completed this year: a review of Tenure and Rewards Systems, and a review of Student Learning Outcomes.
To maintain our communication across campus:
· Adam Reagan will attend Senate meetings on behalf of CSAC (Chancellor’s Staff Advisory Council.)
· Lothar Dohse is the Faculty Senate representative on CSAC.
· The Student Government Association (SGA) will continue to send reports to the Faculty Senate and time will be set aside for Senator’s questions. The Faculty Senate should reciprocate by having someone attend the SGA meetings. It is not necessary for one person to come to every meeting. They meet weekly at 9:00pm. Dr. Dohse and Dr. Berls volunteered to attend some of the meetings.
· The Director of Human Resources wants an open process and invites faculty to attend meetings when policy changes are discussed. Two changes have been under review:
§ Temporary workers will be paid at the end of the month.
§ Time sheets will be submitted electronically rather than by paper.
· Dr. Dohse would like for the Chair of the Faculty Senate to be able to speak to the Board of Trustees, not just listen. This was customary in the past and he would like to return to this tradition.
The following document was distributed for First Reading.
EC 1: Recommended Guidelines: Delivering the Curriculum
Dr. Dohse asked Senators to read EC 1 carefully. This is not a policy. These are guidelines that the Senate should endorse. Currently there are very few guidelines on class size, work load, or which department gets an adjunct. We have no control over some of the guidelines. General Administration used the Delaware Study as a measure of performance. It counts the number of courses taught without taking into consideration credit hours per course. EC 1 addresses these issues.
Dr. Konz understood that the Senate was being asked to endorse not a policy, but rather principles. What are the next steps, assuming the Senate endorses the report?
Dr. Dohse said upon Senate approval, it will return to the Provost. At this point there would be another process in which sections of it would become policy and it would go into the Faculty Handbook. Some items may not need to be in the Handbook but they can be guidelines for the Deans to use. It can be tested and revised if it does not work.
V. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report
Dr. George Heard reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.
FWDC has met twice and made recommendations to the Provost and to the Chancellor for standing committees. FWDC also made its appointments to standing committees. One issue in making committee selections was the faculty who are involved in the Tenure and Rewards System Task Force. Some leniency has been given to faculty who are working on this project. FWDC is in the process of filling these positions.
Committee assignments (follow-up from 04/30/09 meeting)
Dr. Heard asked for the Senate’s indulgence in changing two appointments made to the ILS subcommittees on April 30, 2009.
The Senate approved the following committee changes (Heard/Bell):
· Mark Harvey’s resignation from the Quantitative Intensive subcommittee.
· Patrick Foo’s move from the Information Literacy subcommittee to the Quantitative Intensive subcommittee. Dr. Foo will assume the role of Chair this academic year.
· Gary Ettari is the FWDC representative on the Faculty Scholarship and Service Awards Committee.
· George Heard is the FWDC representative on the University Teaching Council.
· The SGA appointed Eric Gant as Alternate Faculty Conciliator.
· Respond to Code 600 of the UNC System. We started this process last year and there were fairly major changes to verbiage to the policies of Tenure and Reappointment, and also to Post Tenure Review. General Administration is requesting additional changes.
· Take a survey of faculty salaries. FWDC has been charged to do this.
· Review the role of the Pre-Health Committee following the retirement of Barry Fox. We no longer have a Coordinator of Pre-Health program. This is a position that probably should not be a faculty member because it is a liaison to hospitals and to volunteer opportunities.
FWDC 1: Revision to Post-Tenure Review Policy (revision of SD0208F; Faculty Handbook 3.7)
FWDC 1 reflects a shift in responsibility of the Post Tenure Review process. The most significant change is that General Administration did not want the Provost to be the administrator informing the faculty member as to whether they have submitted a satisfactory or unsatisfactory Post Tenure Review because that did not allow a route of higher authority to appeal.
There are two fairly small changes. Last year we brought in the development plan for someone who had submitted an unsuccessful PTR. General Administration wanted more detail on those development plans. The bulk of the change is GA’s desire to have someone other than the Provost who is to convey the decision on PTR. This proposal makes this change where the Post Tenure Review Committee presents a decision to the Dean. The Dean writes a letter to the candidate expressing whether they have had satisfactory or unsatisfactory Post Tenure Review process which then opens the Provost up to be a route of appeal. The Provost has the final say in the case of a decision that Post Tenure Review is not satisfactory.
Dr. Haas asked if faculty undergoing PTR this year would use FWDC 1. Will it be in the current Faculty Handbook? Dr. Heard will clarify this at the next Senate meeting.
VI. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Reports
Potential topics for Institutional Development Committee
· The Mission Statement, as approved by the Faculty Senate, was brought before the UPC and it was approved. It was then brought before the Board of Trustees where several amendments were made. This is clearly within their purview to do. We now have a working Mission Statement for our SACS review. However, no Mission Statement is permanent and we would expect this one to be reviewed as needed.
· Assessment in preparation for SACS review. Ms. Nelms anticipates these topics for this year:
o Update the mission as it is stated in the Faculty Handbook. It includes a large section on the Institutional Effectiveness Committee that we discussed in Senate last year but did not reach closure on. It should be reconstituted or removed from the Faculty Handbook.
o Follow up to confirm the proposed reviews for the administrative divisions. Half of the administrative divisions were supposed to be reviewed last year.
o Administrative divisions, continued from 2008-09, follow up to confirm the proposed reviews.
o Athletics is on the agenda for review, continued from 2008-09.
· Per a request from a member of IDC, look at the role of IDC in the UPC.
· Improve accessibility of policies, procedures, and guidelines. How do citizens of the campus uncover the information that has been generated by committees? How is it implemented? When is it reviewed to see if it is still relevant? We need to make access more efficient. This includes items that have been reviewed but do not appear in the Faculty Handbook.
· Informal discussion on integrating and involving the Board of Trustees in the University.
University Planning Council
Since the last Senate meeting in May, there have been two UPC meetings.
· UPC approved the Mission Statement as it went forward from the Faculty Senate.
· Major topics of discussion during both sessions of UPC during the summer were budget issues.
o Reviewed the latest information.
o Revised and confirmed the University Strategies for 2009-2011 resource allocations.
o Discussed areas of potential cost savings and/or efficiencies.
· One item taking priority is an interim appointment of a Director of Emergency Planning. This position is funded in part by recurring and nonrecurring funds provided by the State in response to recent nationwide campus emergency situations. The appointee has a background from FEMA. There will be a search later; meanwhile we have someone in place.
Dr. Haas noted that since the BOT changed the Mission Statement, only the IDC and the UPC gathered and voted upon the revised statement. He made two requests:
· The new Mission Statement be read into the Senate minutes.
· The Senate Chair address the BOT to find out why the phrase "small by choice" was removed. Why was removing this phrase so important? It has been in our statement since at least 1992.
VII. Academic Policies Committee Report
Announcement: Lorena Russell will continue as APC’s representative on ILSOC.
Agenda for year
Historically, APC has reviewed major curricular changes and then brought documents to the Senate for approval. This practice will continue. However, APC knows that several departments are planning major curricular changes so the workload is likely to be heavier this year than it has been in the recent past. Departments are encouraged to send the proposals in early, before the November 6th deadline.
APC will be executing the components of the review of the general education program that the Faculty Senate approved last December (SD0808F.)
VIII. Administrative Reports
In terms of new students we admitted 643 new freshmen as compared with 588 last year; 318 transfers as compared to 298 last year; 52 new graduate students as compared with 40 last year. 2,278 undergraduates returned to campus compared with 2,171 last year. Fundable FTE from 2008 at 3,169.25 increased to 3,370.75.
Congratulations to Patrice Mitchell and the Admissions Office. Congratulations to all faculty who worked hard and well with Admissions and with enrolled students to help them persist to graduation.
Review of Tenure and Rewards Systems
In response to UNC Tomorrow Phase II, all universities in the system are reviewing these systems with respect to the concept of engagement and outreach activities. The Task Force that has convened to review our systems consists of committee members:
Karin Peterson, chair Melissa Himelein Katherine Min
Judy Beck Charles James Leisa Rundquist
Joseph Berryhill Bruce Larson Scott Walters
Greg Boudreaux Sandra Malicote Betsy Wilson
Task Force members are asked to:
· Read a short collection of readings we have assembled based on our own work over the summer of 2009 (now available on this website);
· Respond to an online survey of all faculty holding tenured, tenure-track or lecturer positions (available soon after Labor Day weekend 2009 and lasting for about two weeks in September);
· Provide feedback about your discipline’s view of the tenure and rewards system at UNCA as well as about the concept of public engagement as it applies to your field(s) during a department or program meeting (to be scheduled between August 2009 and January 2010);
· Attend and participate in meetings for specific groups of faculty, including but not limited to groups determined by rank and type of appointment (to begin January 2010 and end in late March 2010);
· Read and provide feedback to the initial recommendations of our committee (to begin in late spring 2010).
This work will continue through this academic year with a goal of having
proposals for the Faculty Senate’s review next fall.
Student Learning Outcomes and Reaffirmation of Accreditation Process
A small team of UNC Asheville faculty and staff went to the SACS institute in
· Over the summer we developed draft Student Learning Outcomes for departments and programs to review. These outcomes have been derived from our recently approved Mission Statement.
· Each department has an assessment liaison and each has been asked to send feedback to Dr. Friedenberg by September 15th. We will need to make every effort to agree upon a set of University–wide Student Learning Outcomes by the end of this semester.
to close Environmental Quality Institute and
· President Bowles directed all campuses in the UNC system to review Centers and Institutes as well as low productivity majors and make decisions, especially in light of our budget cuts, on which to continue, which to discontinue, and which we might modify.
· In consultation with Deans and Directors, the Provost reviewed five entities in Academic Affairs including NEMAC, CCC+D, PARSEC, Mossbauer Effect Data Center, and EQI.
· Also reviewed in consultation with Deans, department chairs and program directors were eight low productivity majors and three newly established programs. Included in the review of low productivity majors were: Music Technology, French, German, Industrial Engineering and Management, Physics, Philosophy, Classics with Teacher Licensure and Chemistry. During the review, we clarified that Chemistry was mistakenly identified as low productivity and removed from the review. As a result, two majors will be reconfigured: German and IE+M majors will be closed and converted to concentrations or minors. The other majors under review understand the importance of increasing the number of student majors before the time of the next review. We also have communicated and discussed in depth more nuanced understandings about the role of academic departments such as the essential nature of some disciplines such as Philosophy, Classics and Physics to a liberal arts university. The program reviews of Religious Studies, Women’s Studies and Mechatronics were very favorable.
In relation to Centers and Institutes, after a thorough review we have
regretfully discontinued two: Mossbauer and EQI. The review was
multi-faceted and there were many reasons that led to the decision to close
them. Among them, undergraduate student education was not as integral to
their operation as it was to other groups and they were not as financially
stable as others entities. ·
In the case of Mossbauer, their income was not sufficient to support its
operations. In this climate assurances that changes would be made were
not sufficient to commit to its continuation. The Mossbauer lab, where
undergraduate students do research with faculty in Chemistry, is
· In the case of EQI, $280,000 will be saved by not renovating the lab space. Instead the space will be used for classrooms in support of undergraduate teaching and learning. An additional $70,000 as a low estimate will be saved in administrative and overhead costs to the university for housing it. Over the past five years, EQI finances have shown a clear downward trend. This past year, they spent $40,000 more than they brought in. While they were able to cover the balance through their reserves, the reserves have been steadily depleting.
· Over the past five years, an average of less than 3 students per year have been involved in lab work.
· The Provost stressed that the decision to close EQI and Mossbauer was based on a complex and thorough analysis of all aspects of their operations. It was not based on one factor.
· The loss of majors and of Centers and Institutes was painful and difficult. The tough economic times have led us to need to make hard decisions.
and EQI are being phased out gradually through December 31st.
Staff will be given priority consideration for priority vacancies that arise on
campus. We will enable the data from
State Legislature has communicated to us that they are not satisfied with the
level of cuts to UNC campus Centers and Institutes and they are expecting an
additional $1.7 million in cuts. The Provost does not expect that we will
have to cut anything further at UNC Asheville.
Dr. Stevens raised several questions related to the Centers and the Institutes. He stated that this began because of concerns that came from General Administration.
· He asked the Senate to consider information on the size of Centers in relation to the University System. There are 275 Centers and Institutes in the UNC System. Their total budgets come to $595 million. About $124 million is provided by the UNC System. Universities have been asked to cut 10 percent. GA said we have to cut at least $12 million.
· He distributed two handouts that were sent to all of the campuses. One identified where cuts should take place and how much were expected to be cut. UNCA was not listed. UNCA was not given a directive to cut but, as the Provost said, we needed to look at our overall program and make cuts as appropriate.
· Referring to a GA report, UNCA’s six Institutes have a total budget of $3,275,325. Funds that are being provided to support those UNCA Institutes: $710,505. Dr. Steven said as a faculty member and as a director of a Center, where he becomes a little disturbed is that according to the numbers from GA, no UNCA funds were going to EQI and MEDC.
· The second reason that was given in terms of cutting these two Centers is based on the one page University Strategies for 2009. This document is used to evaluate where we are going to make cuts. No. 11 Resource Allocations: Current economic downturn requires us to plan more strategically. He agreed wholeheartedly in terms of No. 5 Strategic Investments; four of the five speak pretty well of Mossbauer and EQI.
· He pointed out that both of these Centers address faculty and students working together, and he asked if that was not the academic core. These various Centers in the UNC System are brought about because of the core values of a particular institution. We have done a good job at UNCA as we have developed Centers and Institutes, and the core values of those reflect who we are as an institution.
· He came before this group a number of years ago in bringing NEMAC to be approved. It was one of the first Centers and Institutes that our Faculty Senate and Board of Trustees approved. He emphasized at that time that it makes sense for us because it addresses students and it addresses faculty. The reason Centers are important to us is that we are very busy teaching; it is a way to bring together collectively our intellectual strength to run a Center around an idea. That was the main focus of NEMAC. In the case of NEMAC, we had ten faculty who were receiving funding through NEMAC and through EQI and through Mossbauer. We have brought to the university not only opportunities for the students, not only opportunities for the faculty, but also equipment that is used in our curriculum.
the case of Mossbauer, for the last ten years he has neither received a salary
nor has he asked for or been given release time. He did it for the University and for the
larger intellectual community. He said
he had no problem with the decision but the reasons do not make sense to him. One, the Centers are not costing the
university because funds from the university are not coming in. Two, the Centers are very much involved with
the core mission of the institution.
That is how Mossbauer and EQI were formed. They started because of faculty’s passionate
interests and they provide opportunities for students and faculty. It is a little disconcerting in terms of our
values that these are now being closed. Dr.
Stevens closed his comments by saying that he wished the institute would be
more forthcoming to understand what is happening. Dr. Stevens then thanked the
· Dr. Kormanik said Dr. Stevens went into a lot of reasons and issues that need to be considered in the evaluation of Centers. This has been especially important over the past six or seven years. UNCA has talked a lot about how Centers are established, how they are evaluated, and how the process works to continue or discontinue them. Policy 101, passed by the Board of Trustees, talked about the evaluation of Centers. It was reviewed as recently as March 2009. He asked, “What was the process and why did we deviate from our institutional procedures and policies that were established? It involved engagement of the Faculty Senate. Was the Senate involved in the decision-making process?”
Fernandes said she had no idea we had a policy.
· Dr. Kormanik said that he emailed the procedure to Dr. Fernandes in March.
o Dr. Fernandes said it went by her if he did and she regretted it.
· Dr. Reynolds said the decision to close EQI is still unclear to a lot of people. EQI still has money. EQI had lots of grant money. Of the two reasons given for closing an institute, it does not seem that one of them applied to EQI, because it seems to be economically self-sufficient. She personally would make a case that in terms of integration with the mission at UNCA there was a lot of good training of students and a lot of environmental aid that was given to the community.
o Dr. Fernandes said she took her understanding from the reports. Maybe she had the wrong information but she understood that an average of less than three students per year worked at EQI. It is a question of whether that is at the level that we would expect from something that is central is undergraduate teaching. Her impression is that the work at EQI was laboratory testing – testing of water – testing of chemicals in the environment – and making reports of them. That is the main work that they did. They included some students, but the students were not the core reason why EQI was formed. Other Centers are more integrally related to the academic core.
· Dr. Reynolds asked if the funding for EQI was part of the decision. Her colleagues understood that EQI had a positive income stream and that they were self-supporting.
o It was Dr. Fernandes’ understanding that last year EQI spent $40,000 more than it took in but they were able to manage it because they had resources. Over the past five years EQI’s reserves have been on a decidedly downward trend. Mossbauer was in the position of losing money. In determining the cost of EQI the Provost considered their allocated space, the utilities they used, and the faculty member’s time directing it. Another consideration, though not an overriding one, was that UNCA would not have to renovate a new lab space. The lab space will be converted into classroom space that will directly relate to student education.
Reynolds said that helps to clarify the decision. Everyone may not agree with the decision but
it helps to get more information.
· Dr. Patch said he thought Provost Fernandes was confused on the number of students involved in EQI. EQI graduates approximately three students per year who receive Distinction as Undergraduate Researchers. Typically students were working on two-year projects, and six students were doing research projects at any given time. In addition, EQI had two student interns per year, and another two to three students working hourly wages. EQI typically had ten students working at the laboratory at any given time. He thought it would be useful for everyone to see the data comparing all of the Centers on their number of undergraduate research projects and students measures of quality like students’ publications in peer review journals. He thought EQI would compare very favorably with the Centers that were kept open.
Fernandes said in the process of the review for Mossbauer, the lab in the
Chemistry department will be continued where Chemistry faculty and students
work with Mossbauer data. That is not
closing. What is closing is the
· Dr. Frank asked if the decision to close these two Centers is final.
o Dr. Fernandes said the decision was final. But she was interested in knowing how to make the process going forward smoother so that the chance that the work can continue in another place is optimized.
· Dr. Frank said in that spirit, looking forward, sometimes it depends on how you look at it, how you describe it, and how you label it. When you asked other departments whether they were willing to provide a home for these Centers, were you asking? Or did you tell departments to take them?
Fernandes said she was rarely directive – of course she asked them. She then asked, “Since when does the Provost
tell departments what to do?”
· Dr. Haas said one reason there are questions is that this occurred during the summer and that is never a good time. You did not get to choose the time so you could bring it to the Faculty Senate.
Fernandes said she knew that it would not be advisable to do something during
the summer but in balance for the university as a whole, it seemed like the
better choice. Part of the complication was that the university was facing an
extremely dreadful task of reducing employees in force. It was determined that it would be better to
do it at one time rather than over a period of time.
· Dr. Stevens referred to his second handout. The last column indicated the number of positions that were funded for the university. For both EQI and Mossbauer there were no positions funded. These are from the records that GA provided the institutions. He did not see how cutting the positions had any effect in terms of our numbers as an institution.
Fernandes said it does not have an effect in terms of this handout but they are
positions at the university that count.
At the time we did that, it enabled some staff that would have been
reduced in forced to be transferred to positions that were continuing. We were able to move some of Mossbauer’s
staff to jobs. She thought that would be
important to do for the staff.
· Dr. Kormanik said the decision to close the EQI and the Mossbauer lab sends a bit of a mixed signal with respect to UNC Tomorrow’s directive for us to engage in applied research. That is part of our core mission, just like our mission to educate undergraduates. They want us to adopt this as part of our core. This decision goes against that and is confusing.
o Dr. Fernandes agreed. The conundrum is that the way that EQI and Mossbauer function there were things being done on site; that is why Academic Affairs tried to ask departments to take them. Then one could make a better argument for faculty members doing applied research and outreach in a real world problem. But the way they were structured was very much outside of the academic discipline and core. That was part of her consideration on closing them.
· Dr. Kormanik said there was an option for them to restructure. That was one of the possibilities and they were not given the opportunity.
Fernandes said we tried and we did not get any entrees into that option. We never got to that part because the
departments did not express an interest in doing it.
· Dr. Stevens said there must be some misperceptions because when he asked his chair about what the Provost just said, he responded that he was not asked by the administration to have Mossbauer come in under Chemistry. It may have been the perception of another conversation he had with the administration.
o Dr. Fernandes said that would be a drastic misperception. She asked Dr. Krumpe to comment.
o Dr. Krumpe said he was the person who had conversations with various departments, and there was no doubt that they were not interested in absorbing these Centers into their daily function. He thought that they both would have – the two that were approached – if they had been told to do so. But that is not how the Provost operates. The departments were given an opportunity to take these Centers – both Centers were put on the table for multiple departments – and nobody stepped forward.
Krumpe also commented on timing. When
the charge was given to the Centers in early spring semester, the Provost
specifically said to all five Center directors who were present, “I don’t want
you to tell me how your Center connects with the university. I want you to demonstrate how the university
can not function without you.” The
Provost could have accepted the first submittal of the reports and made a
decision at that time, and the decision would have been made during the spring
semester. Instead, the Provost and the
Dean engaged each of the Center directors through multiple drafts and
resubmissions of their report to give them every opportunity to make their
case. Suggestions were given on how to
demonstrate that the university could not function without them. Trying to make the process somewhat formative
or developmental and iterative led to this process extending until the end of
the spring semester, beyond graduation and into the summer. It was not done under the cloak of
darkness. It was done so that every
Center had an opportunity to demonstrate an integrative connection to the
· Dr. Patch responded to two comments. 1) The issue of a department taking either of the Centers is a completely artificial one. There is nothing in the directive that says it had to be under a department. EQI for example is a very interdisciplinary program. It clearly does not fit into any one department at UNCA and that would not be appropriate. 2) Regarding Dr. Krumpe’s comments, he would like to see the data on which Centers comparatively are contributing in what ways to the university’s mission, and why the university can not do without them. Dr. Patch asked, “What departments are the other Centers under right now?”
Fernandes said that PARSEC is associated with the Physics department and the
curriculum of the Physics department in terms of Astronomy, and it is integral
in terms of the future plans to build an observatory. The Craft Creativity and
· Dr. Kormanik asked a point of clarification. PARSEC is an inter-institutional Center for which we have the administrative and the physical oversight. The Center for Craft Creativity and Design is also an inter-institutional Center. Are these going to become institutional Centers at UNC Asheville? Or are they going to remain inter-institutional?
Fernandes said PARSEC and the Craft Creativity and
· There being no other questions, Dr. Dohse said Dr. Patch has a point. In the next month he will try to collect comparative data of the Centers for informational purposes. He thanked the Provost for her presentation.
Mr. Stephen Haas reported:
· SGA has introduced Bulldog Bargains, a program where students, faculty and staff who have a OneCard will receive discounts at several area establishments.
· The ASG and the General Assembly worked to remove a $200 “student tax” fee from the budget for next year.
· UNCA now has a disc golf course on campus.
· SGA is working to revamp the student Constitution.
· Several students from UNCA and NC A&T will transfer between schools spring semester.
· Elections will be held next week.
IX. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
X. New Business
New Disc Golf course reduces outdoor lab space for students
Dr. Reynolds noted that the amount of space that we have available for outdoor lab activities has again been reduced (similar to the time when the ropes course was built in the urban forest) without any consultation with the Biology or Environmental Studies departments who use these areas as outdoor classrooms. No one thought of these students when this decision was made.
Dr. Dohse adjourned the meeting at 5:20 pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely